Bait and Switch: Pentecostal Deception? - Page 10

pentecostalguy · #91 03-16-2009, 10:25 PM

I agree with what Brother Edward has to say. I think many on here have missed the point of thread. The thread is not to discuss holiness or if holiness standards should be abided by. The thread is simply a question do we think its right or wrong for a church that believes in standards to not mention standards at all to people wanting to convert. As a Pentecostal that believes in standards it has never set right with me that we don't mention to people wanting to convert what we really believe. My previous pastor used to say well the goal is to get them baptized first then a little later we will tell everything else we believe in. I have always felt that to be wrong at some point we need to be upfront with people wanting to convert and tell them exactly what we believe. A person should know exactly what they are getting into. Back in the day I remember some preachers would talk to a person right before baptism and restate the standards and make sure that person was willing to make such a commitment to God.

Pastor Keith · #92 03-17-2009, 12:38 AM

I have 2 intial reactions, the first one is that spiritual truths (if that it was standards are) should be taught over time, sanctification is a process. Salvation in and of itself is like a man in darkness walking into the light. A person can only handle so much light until his eyes adjust. That is of course if you believe them to be salvational.

The second reaction we shouldn't be teaching these things as salvational especially if there is no scripture at all for them to be addressed. Keep in mind the Epistles were written to saved folks, telling them what to do now that they are saved, revealing not everything comes up front, some things have to be taught over time. The writer of Hebrews said that he had much to share but because of the immaturity of the hearers they were not ready to receive it.

Aquila · #93 03-17-2009, 01:09 AM

1 Corinthians 3:2
2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

I have a son who's going to be three in a few months. He was drinking milk and eating soft foods before the little McDonald's hamburgers. As he grows his diet changes. I see it the same way. People aren't stupid. They see the way we dress and our standards if they attend church. They know that there is a certain "way" we live. They fellowship and visit our homes for bible studies etc. But we get them grounded in doctrine first. The simple milk of the Word. Then we move into some of the stuff that's a little difficult to chew as they develop.

Praxeas · #94 03-17-2009, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentecostalguy

I agree with what Brother Edward has to say. I think many on here have missed the point of thread. The thread is not to discuss holiness or if holiness standards should be abided by. The thread is simply a question do we think its right or wrong for a church that believes in standards to not mention standards at all to people wanting to convert. .

No, we ALL got that. Whether or not they SHOULD tell them before they are even saved or converted depends on whether or not you have to do them before being saved

Praxeas · #95 03-17-2009, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

I have 2 intial reactions, the first one is that spiritual truths (if that it was standards are) should be taught over time, sanctification is a process. Salvation in and of itself is like a man in darkness walking into the light. A person can only handle so much light until his eyes adjust. That is of course if you believe them to be salvational.

The second reaction we shouldn't be teaching these things as salvational especially if there is no scripture at all for them to be addressed. Keep in mind the Epistles were written to saved folks, telling them what to do now that they are saved, revealing not everything comes up front, some things have to be taught over time. The writer of Hebrews said that he had much to share but because of the immaturity of the hearers they were not ready to receive it.

Thank you!

iceniez · #96 03-17-2009, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

In many cases, yes. I think EA has pointed out a real problem that gives Pentecostal/Apostolics a black eye all too often.

People end up feeling betrayed by their friends and "brethren." After bonding they end up being bitterly disposed of if they don't go along. Their "failure to mature" is then attributed to some fault or flaw with their carnal nature.

They end up being told that they are "pig's filth" and "dog vomit" for failing to go along with a set of crazily and haphazardly concocted "holiness standards" that vary even from church to church in the same town.

I ended up wondering if it wouldn't be better if we didn't ecompass land and sea to make a complete stranger twice the child of hell that we are. Then, I found a new and better way.

WOW,OUCH,OOOOOOOO..........Boy did we experience this when we came in to the church.We were baptised in a traditionalaly all black congregation.[these don't seem to harp on standards probably a subject for another thread] then we went to a upc church and boy what a shock.I agree with you.

Sister Alvear · #97 03-17-2009, 06:57 AM

I think we should have a balanced service. The preacher should be lead of God and following the leading you will never go wrong.

CC1 · #98 03-17-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentecostalguy

I agree with what Brother Edward has to say. I think many on here have missed the point of thread. The thread is not to discuss holiness or if holiness standards should be abided by. The thread is simply a question do we think its right or wrong for a church that believes in standards to not mention standards at all to people wanting to convert. As a Pentecostal that believes in standards it has never set right with me that we don't mention to people wanting to convert what we really believe. My previous pastor used to say well the goal is to get them baptized first then a little later we will tell everything else we believe in. I have always felt that to be wrong at some point we need to be upfront with people wanting to convert and tell them exactly what we believe. A person should know exactly what they are getting into. Back in the day I remember some preachers would talk to a person right before baptism and restate the standards and make sure that person was willing to make such a commitment to God.

Don't you think the idea is that once a person is baptized and receives the Holy Ghost they will be more receptive to the non biblical legalism that is going to be thrust upon them?

To upfront, in every evangelistic service I guess, go down the clothesline of what will be expected of them IF they come to an altar, repent, are baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost seems absurd to me.

rgcraig · #99 03-17-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentecostalguy

I agree with what Brother Edward has to say. I think many on here have missed the point of thread. The thread is not to discuss holiness or if holiness standards should be abided by. The thread is simply a question do we think its right or wrong for a church that believes in standards to not mention standards at all to people wanting to convert. As a Pentecostal that believes in standards it has never set right with me that we don't mention to people wanting to convert what we really believe. My previous pastor used to say well the goal is to get them baptized first then a little later we will tell everything else we believe in. I have always felt that to be wrong at some point we need to be upfront with people wanting to convert and tell them exactly what we believe. A person should know exactly what they are getting into. Back in the day I remember some preachers would talk to a person right before baptism and restate the standards and make sure that person was willing to make such a commitment to God.

See, here's where I have a problem. WE, we, we......what's up with that? What about letting GOD take care of it? If it's something that's required of God wouldn't that make more sense?

rgcraig · #**100** 03-17-2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

I have 2 intial reactions, the first one is that spiritual truths (if that it was standards are) should be taught over time, sanctification is a process. Salvation in and of itself is like a man in darkness walking into the light. A person can only handle so much light until his eyes adjust. That is of course if you believe them to be salvational.

The second reaction we shouldn't be teaching these things as salvational especially if there is no scripture at all for them to be addressed. Keep in mind the Epistles were written to saved folks, telling them what to do now that they are saved, revealing not everything comes up front, some things have to be taught over time. The writer of Hebrews said that he had much to share but because of the immaturity of the hearers they were not ready to receive it.

Excellent post!